mannc

I never said Prescott was in Mahomes's category. He's clearly better than mediocre, though. He's a young QB who has played very well his first three years in the league, while winning a lot of games and playing well in the playoffs. He's not a guy the Cowboys can afford to let go...and they won't, regardless what happens with Zeke Elliott.

Rubbish. What QB has put up better numbers his first three years in the league? Definitely not Alex Smith....

How is Dak “so mediocre”? He’s pretty clearly a top 10 guy, although probably not yet in the elite category.

Silly. Gordon is JAG compared to Elliott. I might give up a fourth for him and LA knows he’s easily replaceable.

Chemical, relax. You're in an alternate universe called TBD, where the members are pissed that the GM tried to improve the worst receiver group in recent NFL history by signing a first-ballot hall of fame WR who's still near the peak of his career. As a corollary, they also believe that great WRs are to be avoided at all costs, especially ones who celebrate good plays.

It was an awesome thread title though. A question mark at the end would have made it perfect.

Perhaps...if you happen to have the greatest head coach and QB of all time. Not exactly a repeatable formula. Trivia Question: Who was the MVP of this past Super Bowl and what position did he play?

This is a key point and is the reason I believe WR is the second most important position in the NFL. A fast, play-making WR (or two) will open up opportunities for other positions, like RB and TE, in addition to making big plays himself.

No, he said he was teaching him to box. You might think that’s weak, but he hasn’t been charged and the the NFL didn’t suspend him.

What physical harm did Hill dish out to his family members? The NFL did not find evidence that he did that. Do you have evidence the investigators weren’t aware of, or are you just slandering someone on a public forum for the fun of it?

If Singletary beats out McCoy, then Shady will likely be cut or traded. And that's as it should be.

What did the league fail to disclose that you think it should have disclosed? They aren’t going to release their investigative files, for a lot of reasons. In fact, they probably couldn’t even if they wanted to.

Fine. I think we can agree that, in general, it's bad for the league when high-profile guys like Hill and Reed do bad things and it ends up in the media. I'm not sure there's a lot Roger can do to make everyone happy in these sorts of situations.

It depends...What does he release?

The linked article says very little about what Smith actually did, but it appears to have been a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior over a long period of time--quite different from the evidence against Hill, which seems to have consisted of one fairly vague statement that he apparently did not act upon. I think the league should be commended for drawing distinctions between different situations and not just slapping a four-game suspension on every player who's accused of something, just to satisfy the virtue-signalling public. Doling out the same punishment to everyone might look fair on the surface, but it's really not. Hill has a history of being a bad actor, and I'm sure the league wanted to send a message by side-lining him for some period of time regardless of his star status, but the evidence apparently wasn't there. I don't agree that that makes the league look bad.

What's hard to follow? The league found sufficient evidence that Reed did it and insufficient evidence that Hill did it. Seems very easy to follow...

The linked article says almost nothing about the evidence against Reed. The NFL found that there was insufficient evidence for the league to take action against Hill. What reason do you have to believe that the evidence against Hill was comparable to the evidence against Reed? Why would the league treat Reed more harshly than Hill for similar offenses? Both are stars, although I'll admit that Hill is a bigger one than Reed.

Every day, district attorneys charge certain suspects with crimes and decide not to charge others, for reasons that are not fully disclosed. Is that a bad look, too?

Big loss for the Seahawks. When I was watching Frank Clark's highlights, I kept noticing Reed destroying the other teams' offensive lines and terrorizing QBs. He's an absolute beast.

they did. They said there was insufficient evidence that uncharged guy #2 did it. Unless you're privy to all the information that the league was, you have no basis for suggesting that there is a double standard.

Agreed. Brady is obviously JAG. Great take.

Modern defenses are designed to stop the pass. Belichick is creating an offense that will exploit that tendency, while at the same time relying less on QB brilliance, as Brady’s limitations become more apparent and the team transitions to a new QB. That may change if and when they find a new franchise QB. The run-first post-Brady Pats might not be dominant, but they certainly won’t be the pushover many Bills fans seem to expect.

Yeah, the Jets and Bills look very similar and the opener will tell us a lot. I give the Bills the edge because I like Allen and Mc Dermott a lot more than Gase and Darnold.

Assuming Belichick sticks around after Brady retires, we may finally get an answer to this question. Me, I’m expecting the Pats to continue to dominate in the post-Brady era. With their new emphasis on the ground game, Belichick is already setting the stage. And every year, the Pats seem to have more draft picks than anyone else. It’s very frustrating because there never seems to be any light at the end of this particular tunnel.

Don’t get me wrong; Brady is the best ever, but the past 10 years or so, Rodgers and Brees have been nearly as good, and at times, better. And yet their teams haven’t had nearly the success of NE. There’s not much doubt that neither wins six Super Bowls without the other.